the game

[whartung]

D and D is a household name. Traveller once was also. What happened? The devil was not interested in Traveller. As Traveller was never accused of having been associated with Satanism like d&d was in the late 1980's due to teen death during "live" role playing. Negative attention is still attention.

Traveller was never a household name. It may have been common in the gaming community, but certainly not a household name. D&D's notoriety (for good or ill) made it a household name. You'll note that the kids in Stranger Things are playing D&D.

Two things to keep in mind. One, D&D has had perhaps better marketing in general. This game also grew into a more simplified versions as it progressed into each generation of the game. Two, I'm not attempting to say anything negative about the marketing of either product. I am just stating what I understand of marketing concepts and what becomes a household name.

D&D was inherently popular, it became the "generic" term for RPGs at the time. Every game was compared to D&D, but D&D was like "Coke". Then there were the scandals and stories that simply raised its market awareness.

Let ask this, how many know the name MacDonald's? Now, who knows the name, Carl's jr.? or even Jack-in-the-Box? All three are burger franchise chains. MacDonald's is known worldwide. It even has a negative attention associated to it. I've never heard anything negative with Carl's jr. or Jack-in-the-box. I also have never seen one of those or have eaten there. Carl's jr. is from the South East US, and Jack--Box is a West Coast US. I live in the North East. I only know of them from small sources.

McDonalds premiered the idea of the franchise. They spent a lot of money in the 70's marketing to children as well, with Ronald McDonald and Hamburglers. Jack In The Box notoriety came from a food poisoning scare that almost killed them. They're now leaders and innovators in food safety, something they take _very_ seriously. After that, they pioneered the "Jack" character who is probably more loved than Ronald McDonald ever was. Carl's Jr is in fact from Southern California, they purchased Hardees in the late '90's, which had a midwest and (I guess) SE presence.

Even though they been around basically same time, D & D is available at every game store. What system is promoted/marketed better? ...need I say more.?

D&D is more accessible. Early on, it's combat, treasure, and more combat and treasure. There are no accountants in D&D. Dungeon crawls are easy. The game is heroic. We used to just run around a geomorphic map, and roll random monsters and make stuff up. No rhyme or reason, just wandering halls, killing monsters. Playing, in all sense of what the word "play" means.

D&D benefited from the enormous budget of WotC after it purchased it from MtG. The D&D books production wise are top quality. They always have been. Traveller hasn't done well with production after TNE.

So, It was just the point...TSR/Wizards of the Cost/Hasbro, were simply better at Marketing...When nearly no one has heard of you and you have been around for forty years, just as long as a competitor, whom everyone has heard of, it is a case of Marketing and promotion. One Marketing plan worked, one did not. just how it is.

It's not just marketing and promotion. There are endless Fantasy RPGs, dime a dozen, and many made a serious play for mindshare back in the day. But D&D prevailed, then got the monster war chest of WotC, gasoline to the flame.

 

[creativehum]

I can see it. It would be a very minor part of the issue. Here’s my take. Because there is relatively little to no marketing for Traveller the general population isn’t aware of it and its take on character creation etc. Traveller’s take on RPGs is very different than that of D&D and Pathfinder...

Sure. But Call of Cthulhu is different from D&D. And Mouse Guard is different than D&D. And Burning Wheel is different from D&D. Also different than D&D: King Arthur Pendragon, Primetime Adventures, and HeroQuest: Glorantha. And, in fact, different editions of D&D are different than each other.

I used the specific games because I have run them successfully for people who have never heard of them before they played. Knowledge of a game ahead of a Referee pitching to a player is not required for play to be successful.

I am currently running Lamentations of the Flame Princess -- which is a B/X D&D retroclone. Mechanically the game is very unlike AD&D and every edition after AD&D. In terms of the fictional details it is set in 17th century Europe, but with inter-dimensional and interplanetary forces using exotic magic to probe our defense and invade us. The setting feels like a mix of The Adventures of Baron Munchausen and H.P. Lovecraft. There are no orcs, no elves, no goblins, no wizards with pointy hats. It is, as one of my players said, so unlike any D&D game he's ever played that it doesn't feel like D&D at all. And yet, he points out, we're using D&D rules.

So simply saying "D&D" is kind of meaningless. What matters are the details of what makes a particular game this game at this table. And that means knowing what your game is, knowing the coolest parts of it, and pitching those to potential players.

So, no matter what game you want to run you have to pitch it. You have to make it clear what this game is about -- and not by denigrating other games but by making clear what is awesome about this game that you want to run for other people.

Traveller can be so many things that to say "It's Traveller" is as meaningless as D&D. That doesn't tell us anything about the mechanics, it doesn't tell us anything about the setting the Referee is envisioning, it doesn't tell us about the kinds of things the PCs might end up doing. Even in the OTU the game could play out countless ways. We all get that, right? Simply saying "It's set in the OTU" really doesn't help anyone know what the game will be -- even if they are steeped in the OTU. (In fact, all of this is a kind of trap. People who know the OTU might think they know what kind of game they are getting if it is set in the OTU. But, in fact, the Referee can make the game go any number of ways in terms of setting, focus, and activities for the PCs that it all might be a complete mismatch.)

But Traveller is more than the OTU (at least for many people). See the nearby writeup Sabredog did of his game. It is utterly unlike what flykiller was going for.

So, yes, marketing a specific game matters when pitching it to players. But as far as the overall marketing issues and brand recognition... it's meaningless when gathering players. All you can do is pitch what you can't wait to share with people and then see who signs up. Every RPG game is going to be different -- even using the same rules.

What matters is THIS GAME at THIS TABLE the Referee is going to run, independent of the game's trademarked name or the labels and assumptions we might slap across it.

In fact, the wisest thing to do would be to strip off the game's name and assume you had to sell it with nothing more than the highlights of the mechanics that matter to you, the setting, and the shenanigans you expect the PCs to get involved with. That will help you make clear to potential players the games you want to share with people.

 

[Thanos]

It's not just marketing and promotion. There are endless Fantasy RPGs, dime a dozen, and many made a serious play for mindshare back in the day.

And back to Fantasy is, for some unknown reason, more popular than SF.

 

[Thanos]

......but as far as the overall marketing issues and brand recognition... it's meaningless when gathering players. All you can do is pitch what you can't wait to share with people and then see who signs up. Every RPG game is going to be different -- even using the same rules.

Marketing and branding are meaningless? There's a multibillion dollar industry that says your wrong.

Sure. But Call of Cthulhu is different from D&D. And Mouse Guard is different than D&D. And Burning Wheel is different from D&D. Also different than D&D: King Arthur Pendragon, Primetime Adventures, and HeroQuest: Glorantha. And, in fact, different editions of D&D are different than each other.

Cthulhu is damn near ubiquitous. Mouse Guard and Burning Wheel? What? Faux medieval fantasy! Just like DnD? Count me in! Same with everthing else you mentioned. Hey what's that game like? It's like DnD. Do you know people outside REALLY hard core gamers that get excited over mechanics?

 

[LiNeNoiSe]

D&D is more accessible. Early on, it's combat, treasure, and more combat and treasure. There are no accountants in D&D. Dungeon crawls are easy. The game is heroic. We used to just run around a geomorphic map, and roll random monsters and make stuff up. No rhyme or reason, just wandering halls, killing monsters. Playing, in all sense of what the word "play" means.

D&D players never concern themselves with how all those monsters manage to survive without any food. Wouldn't they eat each other?

 

[creativehum]

Marketing and branding are meaningless? There's a multibillion dollar industry that says your wrong.

I stand by the statement. You're contorting my sentences to mean what I clearly was not talking about. Of course marketing and branding mean something. But in the context of gathering a group of players around the table what matters to the game working or not -- which is what this thread is about -- is how whatever system is picked up is applied and used by everyone at the table.

Cthulhu is damn near ubiquitous. Mouse Guard and Burning Wheel? What? Faux medieval fantasy! Just like DnD? Count me in! Same with everthing else you mentioned. Hey what's that game like? It's like DnD. Do you know people outside REALLY hard core gamers that get excited over mechanics?

If this were true everyone would, for example, love Mouse Guard if they love B/X D&D. We know, however, this is not the case. And, you know, mice.

Again, if someone does a bang up job of selling a game using the Traveller rules to potential players then he'll have players -- whether or not any of them have ever heard of Traveller before.

Again, I've been playing with a group of people who had never heard of Lamentations of the Flame Princess, who had never played B/X D&D, and we've been meeting for coming up on two years now.

Keep in mind as well that two of these Players had fled a local Pathfinder game. Ubiquitous or not, "D&D" is not enough to make a game work or people want to play.

I have a feeling you're going to see some sort of gap in the argument here to attack on. Don't bother. You'll be elastic as you wish to somehow try to prove to me marketing and branding matter. Of course they matter.

But ultimately a well-known game isn't going to make a game work. Simply saying I'm running "D&D" isn't going to be enough get you players who will click with what you want to do. Knowing what you want your game to be, being clear about that, and finding the players who want that will bring players in for any particular system even if people have never heard of it.

I am comfortable standing by those statements -- which are the same statements I made above.

 

[Condottiere]

Games depend on ambiance and default Dungeons and Dragons tends to be optimistic high fantasy.

 

[Thanos]

I stand by the statement. You're contorting my sentences to mean what I clearly was not talking about. Of course marketing and branding mean something. But in the context of gathering a group of players around the table what matters to the game working or not -- which is what this thread is about -- is how whatever system is picked up is applied and used by everyone at the table.

Gathering? No. Keeping? Yes. If you can't play the game then who's going to want to play the game? Branding and Marketing get people to the table.

Mechanics are not what I want to do. Mechanics make what I want to do possible.

Have you ever pitched as game to someone based on the mechanic? Isn't it always about the adventures you can have? I'm seriously asking.

Again, if someone does a bang up job of selling a game using the Traveller rules to potential players then he'll have players -- whether or not any of them have ever heard of Traveller before.

Maybe I'm missing what your saying here but aren't you contradicting yourself?

Again, I've been playing with a group of people who had never heard of Lamentations of the Flame Princess, who had never played B/X D&D, and we've been meeting for coming up on two years now.

Keep in mind as well that two of these Players had fled a local Pathfinder game. Ubiquitous or not, "D&D" is not enough to make a game work or people want to play.

Why did they flee? Was it the rules or something else? If it was the rules then your case stands. If it was something else then your case is not as strong.

I have a feeling you're going to see some sort of gap in the argument here to attack on. Don't bother. You'll be elastic as you wish to somehow try to prove to me marketing and branding matter. Of course they matter.

Is this your way of saying no matter what evidence, if any, I bring to the discussion I will be unable to convince you?

Also please point out what I've been "elastic" in this discussion or any other that I've been involved in.

But ultimately a well-known game isn't going to make a game work.

I agree. With caveats.

And simply saying "D&D" isn't going to get you players to show up.

Maybe it's different in your neck of the woods but, OMG wrong. Convincing people in my area to play something other than DnD is almost like treason.

Knowing what you want your game to be, being clear about that, and finding the players who want that will bring players in for any particular system even if people have never heard of it.

See above.

 

[mike wightman]

In E.T. they were playing Dungeons and Dragons, not Traveller :CoW:

 

[creativehum]

Oh, lord.
Please stop focusing on the rules.

Look. The rules do matter. If I say to people, "Hey you want to play Burning Wheel? It's just like D&D" three broad results are possible as we enter our second hour of burning characters:
1. All the players will be loving this
2. All the players will be hating this
3. There will be a mix of love and hate

And those that hate it will be pissed they got roped into a game with a promise of "just like D&D" that is clear simply from character creation to be nothing like D&D.

An example from this forum: I think the Classic Traveller system is terrific as written. So do some others. Aramis, however, is on record as really being down on the ad-hoc Throw system. He wants something uniform and universal when playing. (I'm not knocking Aramis for this. I get his point of view. I am simply point out that there is a reason some people still play Classic Traveller and other people start with MegaTraveller as their base.)

In the cold, hard light of reality stating that the rules don't matter is specious at best. The rules of King Arthur Pendragon, D&D 4th Edition, and Sorcerer are obviously going to provide completely different play experiences. Some people will be drawn to some or all. But anyone who assumes those rules won't affect how the game goes over... I really don't know what to say. There really is nothing to say.

When I talk about "selling" the rules, by the way I'm not talking about listing out all the rules. I'm talking about things from a post of my a while back where I laid out how the Players could expect to interact with the rules of LotFP. The fact is, in games like OD&D, B/X D&D, and Pendragon PCs can die fairly easily. In games like Sorcerer or Burning Wheel death is possible... but you have to ramp up to it rather significantly, with the Players very aware that they might need to get the hell out of the situation they are in with plenty of time to avoid a mortal blow. And in a game like Fate you are simply not going to die unless you choose to have your character die.


But that's all rules stuff. And you're focusing on the rules.

But I was not focusing on the rules. I mentioned rules.

But I talked about many other things besides rules... really important things that the Referee has to sell to the players that are more important than rules.

I'm not going to re-type everything from the last two posts. But please note that I have specifically talked about the setting, what players characters will do, and so on.

Your focus on my discussing "rules" exclusively is your thing.... no mine.


As for this:

ME: "Again, if someone does a bang up job of selling a game using the Traveller rules to potential players then he'll have players -- whether or not any of them have ever heard of Traveller before."

YOU: "Maybe I'm missing what your saying here but aren't you contradicting yourself?"

I don't think so? I'm not sure what you see as the contraction. So I'll take some guesses to reply.

I think you're saying that once the Referee selling players on a game they have now heard of it? (I am assuming here. Truly guessing.)

My point is that branding and marketing is something that exists outside of me -- a potential Referee pitching a game to potential players. Whether or not potential players have been hit by any branding or marketing, all that matters is that they are intrigued by what I say right now as I pitch the game I am going to be running.

I have no idea if that answers your comment that I am contradicting myself, but I decided to guess at what you were getting at and provide and answer.

... but, OMG wrong.

I pity your situation... but please don't tell me I'm wrong. I've already made it clear I play a broad spectrum of games. And, per my tale of the players who fled the Pathfinder game, at least in Los Angeles simply saying "D&D" isn't enough to have someone show up to a game.

And I truly believe that with legwork people can get a game going of the sort the want to play. I may be wrong about that. But we'd have to get the metrics on the effort put forth to test that.

 

[creativehum]

In E.T. they were playing Dungeons and Dragons, not Traveller :CoW:

Yes. Because, as has already been stated by many people, D&D had (and has) a brand awareness that people knew even if they never played an RPG.

Please note: I'm writing a screenplay right now that references D&D throughout the script. I'm doing this because it a) informs one of the characters because he sees the problem in the terms of D&D and b) I know the audience will "get it" -- whether or not they play D&D.

That has nothing to do with saying to some friends, "Hey, I have this cool, new cooperate game that does X... we'll do these kinds of things when we play. Do you want to play?"

 

[rhialto]

I'm guessing too, but I think someone is equating your "pitch" of a game (which comprises a set of rules, a setting, and things the characters can expect to do/encounter) to you "marketing" the game to your group: not corporate marketing, but personal marketing.

 

[Silverhawk]

I remember commenting to a friend back a long time ago as magazines like Dragon and White Dwarf changed from general gaming content to strict support for D&D and Warhammer, that it wasn't a good thing because of the lack of exposure of other genres and rules systems would result in people who only play one system only.

Somewhere back up thread someone commented on knowing the system and I agree. That's part of my conundrum. I ran MegaTraveller primarily. But I like the look of T5 but I remember other campaigns I attempted when I wasn't quite sure of the rules and they were a disaster.

Even so I have never seriously considered giving up on being a GM although I know people who are strictly players who don't referee.

 

[Whipsnade]

I've always likened the predominance of D&D/d20 derived RPG systems to predominance of the Windows operating systems and the QWERTY keyboard.

Windows, QWERTY, and D&D/d20 won out simply because they made enough sales reach the tipping point before their competitors. After that point, their ubiquity becomes self reinforcing. You learn the operating system which lets you operate the most computers. You learn the keyboard layout that lets you touch type on the most typewriters. You learn the RPGs systems which lets you play in the most TTRPGs.

"Quality" doesn't matter. Suitability doesn't matter. Nothing matters but the numbers. Once enough people use your standard the battle is over.

Despite this ubiquity specialists, hobbyists, and outliers still exist. You want to edit film? You use Apple machines with an Apple OS because Apple won that market's numbers game before Windows.

 

[aramis]

Gathering? No. Keeping? Yes. If you can't play the game then who's going to want to play the game? Branding and Marketing get people to the table.

Mechanics are not what I want to do. Mechanics make what I want to do possible.

Have you ever pitched as game to someone based on the mechanic? Isn't it always about the adventures you can have? I'm seriously asking.

Actually, I have pitched games based upon the mechanics.... never on the mechanics alone, but upon the mechanics and how they'll help with the genre.

 

[Supplement Four]

Windows, QWERTY, and D&D/d20 won out simply because they made enough sales reach the tipping point before their competitors.

This happens a lot, with all types of products. Beta was the superior product, but it was VHS that won that war. Blu ray won against HD DVD. Vonage lost to Skype. Microsoft Zume lost to Apple's iPod. Palm's Blackberry, though dominate for a while, eventually lost to the iPhone.

And so on...

 

[flykiller]

link v2 to creativehum's thread #37904, "An Improvised Classic Traveller Convention Game [Part I]", located at [url]http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=37904[/URL]

 

[creativehum]

link v2 to creativehum's thread #37904, "An Improvised Classic Traveller Convention Game [Part I]", located at [url]http://www.travellerrpg.com/CotI/Discuss/showthread.php?t=37904[/URL]

flykiller,
What were your thoughts?

 

[Keklas Rekobah]

This thread has gone 'meta' in its context, and has become focused on assigning blame. So here's my question:

"How would YOU 'sell' Traveller to gamers that have never played it before?"

I got lucky and 'sold' it to a group of jaded former AD&D players as a means to provide a gaming universe based on Stargate, as it was during the fifth or sixth season of "Stargate: SGC". The campaign lasted long past the time when all the series' were cancelled, the licenses were pulled, and the props sold off.

Now that Guardians of the Galaxy is a hot item (more or less), perhaps someone could develop an adaptation of the rules for GotG that would still retain the look and feel of a Traveller campaign.

Or maybe flesh out a Mercenary ticket that is based on Call of Duty or the latest James Bond movie.

 

[Keklas Rekobah]

Another opinion ...

How many of you remember Patricia Pulling? She was an anti-occult campaigner from Richmond, Virginia and the founder of Bothered About Dungeons & Dragons (BADD), which was a one-person advocacy group dedicated to the elimination of Dungeons & Dragons and other such games.

How about William Schnoebelen? His essays portrayed Dungeons & Dragons as a tool for New Age Satanic groups to introduce immoral concepts and behaviors.

How about James Dallas Egbert III? After an unsuccessful suicide attempt, he hid at a friend's house for approximately a month. His parents hired private investigator William Dear to find him. Since this detective knew nothing about D&D at that time, he speculated to the press that Egbert had gotten lost in the steam tunnels during a session of a live action RPG. The press largely reported the story as fact. Steve was later found working in Texas.

My point is this: AD&D, rightly or not, acquired a reputation as something dangerous to the minds and morals of young people, thus enhancing its cachet as a 'forbidden' game (much like the game of pool in "The Music Man"). Traveller has no such reputation. Thus, people (especially rebellious teens) looking for the thrill of doing something that their peers and parents would not approve of, will gravitate toward something 'naughty' like AD&D - and not 'thoughty' like Traveller.

Anyway, that's my extra Cr0.02 ...